Kinningham v. State
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Elliott, C. J. —
Several objections are urged against the indictment upon which the appellant was convicted, but we deem it necessary to notice only one of them. The indictment charges in general terms that the defendant did “unlawfully, feloniously and wilfully attempt to set fire to and burn and destroy a certain frame building, commonly called a barn.-’-’ No act is charged, and the indictment is radically bad. The charge that the defendant did attempt to do a designated thing is really little more than an averment that he intended to do the thing, and to constitute crime there must be both an act and a guilty intention. Where it is sought to charge an accused with a crime, the acts done by him must be stated. 1 Bishop Crim. Law, section 659.
Judgment reversed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.